Pages

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

For Some Reason, This Isn't a Hate Crime

No arrests had been made as of late Monday in the incident, in which two chunks of concrete attached to threatening notes were tossed through windows at Christian Liberty Academy on Saturday morning.

The move was apparently in protest of a speech anti-gay activist Scott Lively was to give at the school later Saturday at a banquet hosted by LaBarbera's group. The speech went on as planned with a small picket outside.

A note attached to one piece of concrete read in part: "This is just a sample of what we will do if you don't shut down scott lively and AFTAH … Quit the homophobic (expletive)!" The other read, "Shut down Lively."
Some school officials received anonymous emails taking responsibility for the crime, police said.

A post on the Chicago Independent Media Center's website also claims credit, saying it was done to "show that there is a consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community." The post warns that the school "will continue to be under constant attack" if the event is not shut down.

The article reports that, "Police have not classified the weekend vandalism of an Arlington Heights Christian school as a hate crime...." Obviously not. It does not have the right victims.

There comes a moment when homosexuality becomes such a dominant force in a society that freedom of speech is in serious jeopardy. The parallels to the "slaveocracy" suppressing freedom of speech in the 1830s and 1840s is pretty obvious.

4 comments:

I've always hated the term "Hate Crime". Are you going to expect me to believe that the assaults, beatings, murders, etc. perpetrated on people who aren't "protected" are done because the perpetrators love the victims? Or that it's nothing personal, just business?

An interesting point--and an argument that hate crimes are perhaps less useful than they first appear. This is every bit as destructive to a society as a crime based on race or ethnicity, because it attempts to suppress freedom of speech.

I'm not sure - the whole point of 'hate crime' statutes was to allow for increased sentencing for attacks on individuals because of the groups they belonged to in contrast to what a specific individual does.

In this case they could already prosecute for the vandalism and for the civil rights violation, I.e. it's already 'enhanced'.

But any way the reason the police can't call it a hate crime is because that term has specific meaning legally and I can see how this doesn't necessarily fit.